CHAPTER XXIV

THE doctrine of trials is open to great objections; it is in fact
more exposed to objections than any other thing taught in Scripture. It is mentioned
in Scripture six times, as I will show in this chapter. People have generally the
notion that trials consist in afflictions and mishaps sent by God to man, not as
punishments for past sins, but as giving opportunity for great reward. This principle
is not mentioned in Scripture in plain language, and it is only in one of the six
places referred to that the literal meaning conveys this notion. I will explain
the meaning of that passage later on. The principle taught in Scripture is exactly
the reverse; for it is said: “He is a God of faithfulness, and there is no iniquity
in him” (Deut. xxxii. 4).

The teaching of our Sages, although some of them approve this
general belief [concerning trials], is on the whole against it. For they say, “There
is no death without sin, and no affliction without transgression.” (See p. 285.)
Every intelligent religious person should have this faith, and should not ascribe
any wrong to God, who is far from it; he must not assume that a person is innocent
and perfect and does not deserve what has befallen him. The trials mentioned in
Scripture in the [six] passages, seem to have been tests and experiments by which
God desired to learn the intensity of the faith and the devotion of a man or a nation.
[If this were the case] it would be very difficult to comprehend the object of the
trials, and yet the sacrifice of Isaac seems to be a case of this kind, as none
witnessed it, but God and the two concerned [Abraham and Isaac]. Thus God says to
Abraham, “For now I know that thou fearest God,” etc. (Gen. xxii. 12). In another
passage it is said: “For the Lord your God proveth you to know whether ye love,”
etc. (Deut. xiii. 4). Again, “And to prove thee to know what was in thine heart,”
etc. (ibid. viii. 2). I will now remove all the difficulties.

The sole object of all the trials mentioned in Scripture is to
teach man what he ought to do or believe; so that the event which forms the actual
trial is not the end desired: it is but an example for our instruction and guidance.
Hence the words “to know (la-da’at) whether ye love,” etc., do not mean that God
desires to know whether they loved God; for He already knows it; but la-da’at,
“to know,” has here the same meaning as in the phrase “to know (la-da’at) that I
am the Lord that sanctifieth you” (Exod. xxxi. 13), i.e., that all nations shall
know that I am the Lord who sanctifieth you. In a similar manner Scripture says: — If a man should rise, pretend to be a prophet,
and show you his signs by which
he desired to convince you that his words are true, know that God intends thereby
to prove to the nations how firmly you believe in the truth of God’s word, and how
well you have comprehended the true Essence of God; that you cannot be misled by
any tempter to corrupt your faith in God. Your religion will then afford a guidance
to all who seek the truth, and of all religions man will choose that which is so
firmly established that it is not shaken by the performance of a miracle. For a
miracle cannot prove that which is impossible; it is useful only as a confirmation
of that which is possible, as we have explained in our Mishneh-torah. (Yesode ha-torah
vii. f. viii. 3.)

Having shown that the term “to know” means “that all people may
know,” we apply this interpretation to the following words said in reference to
the manna: “To humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart,
whether thou wouldst keep his commandments, or not” (Deut. viii. 2). All nations
shall know, it shall be published throughout the world, that those who devote themselves
to the service of God are supported beyond their expectation. In the same sense
it was said when the manna commenced to come down, “that I may prove them whether
they will walk in my law or no” (Exod. xvi. 4); i.e., let every one who desires
try and see whether it is useful and sufficient to devote himself to the service
of God. It is, however, said a third time in reference to the manna: “Who fed thee
in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee,
and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end” (Deut. viii. 16).
This might induce us to think that God sometimes afflicts man for the purpose of
increasing his reward. But in truth this is not the case. We may rather assume one
of the two following explanations; either this passage expresses the same idea as
is expressed in the first and second passages, viz., to show [to all people] whether
faith in God is sufficient to secure man’s maintenance and his relief from care
and trouble, or not. Or the Hebrew term le-nassoteka means “to accustom thee”;
the word is used in this sense in the following passage: “She has not accustomed
(nisseta) the sole of her foot to set it upon the ground” (ibid. xxviii. 56). The
meaning of the above passage would then be: “God has first trained you in the hardships
of the wilderness, in order to increase your welfare when you enter the land of
Canaan.” It is indeed a fact that the transition from trouble to ease gives more
pleasure than continual ease. It is also known that the Israelites would not have
been able to conquer the land and fight with its inhabitants, if they had not previously
undergone the trouble and hardship of the wilderness. Scripture says in reference
to this: “For God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and
they return to Egypt. But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness
of the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of
Egypt” (Exod. xiii. 17, 18). Ease destroys bravery, whilst trouble and care for
food create strength; and this was [also for the Israelites] the good that ultimately
came out of their wanderings in the wilderness. The passage, “For God is come to
prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not” (ibid. xx.
20), expresses the same idea as is expressed in Deuteronomy (xiii. 4) in reference
to a person who prophesies in the name of idols, namely in the words: “For the
Lord your God proveth you to know whether ye love the Lord.” We have already explained
the meaning of the latter passage. In the same sense Moses said to the Israelites
when they stood round Mount Sinai: “Do not fear; the object of this great sight
which you perceived is that you should see the truth with your own eyes. When the
Lord your God, in order to show your faithfulness to Him, will prove you by a false
prophet, who will tell you the reverse of what you have heard, you will remain firm
and your steps will not slide. If I had come as a messenger as you desired, and
had told you that which had been said unto me and which you had not heard, you would
perhaps consider as true what another might tell you in opposition to that which
you heard from me. But it is different now, as you have heard it in the midst of
the great sight.”

The account of Abraham our father binding his son, includes two
great ideas or principles of our faith. First, it shows us the extent and limit
of the fear of God. Abraham is commanded to perform a certain act, which is not
equalled by any surrender of property or by any sacrifice of life, for it surpasses
everything that can be done, and belongs to the class of actions which are believed
to be contrary to human feelings. He had been without child, and had been longing
for a child; he had great riches, and was expecting that a nation should spring
from his seed. After all hope of a son had already been given up, a son was born
unto him. How great must have been his delight in the child! how intensely must
he have loved him! And yet because he feared God, and loved to do what God commanded,
he thought little of that beloved child, and set aside all his hopes concerning
him, and consented to kill him after a journey of three days. If the act by which
he showed his readiness to kill his son had taken place immediately when he received
the commandment, it might have been the result of confusion and not of consideration.
But the fact that he performed it three days after he had received the commandment,
proves the presence of thought, proper consideration, and careful examination of
what is due to the Divine command and what is in accordance with the love and fear
of God. There is no necessity to look for the presence of any other idea or of anything
that might have affected his emotions. For Abraham did not hasten to kill Isaac
out of fear that God might slay him or make him poor, but solely because it is man’s
duty to love and to fear God, even without hope of reward or fear of punishment.
We have repeatedly explained this. The angel, therefore, says to him, “For now I
know,” etc. (ibid. ver. 12), that is, from this action, for which you deserve to
be truly called a God-fearing man, all people shall learn how far we must go in
the fear of God. This idea is confirmed in Scripture; it is distinctly stated that
one sole thing, fear of God, is the object of the whole Law with its affirmative
and negative precepts, its promises and its historical examples, for it is said, “If thou wilt not observe to do all the words
of this Law that are written in this
book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord thy God,” etc.
(Deut. xxviii. 58). This is one of the two purposes of the
‘akedah (sacrifice or
binding of Isaac).

The second purpose is to show how the prophets believed in the
truth of that which came to them from God by way of inspiration. We shall not think
that what the prophets heard or saw in allegorical figures may at times have included
incorrect or doubtful elements, since the Divine communication was made to them,
as we have shown, in a dream or a vision and through the imaginative faculty. Scripture
thus tells us that whatever the Prophet perceives in a prophetic vision, he considers
as true and correct and not open to any doubt; it is in his eyes like all other
things perceived by the senses or by the intellect. This is proved by the consent
of Abraham to slay “his only son whom he loved,” as he was commanded, although the
commandment was received in a dream or a vision. If the Prophets had any doubt or
suspicion as regards the truth of what they saw in a prophetic dream or perceived
in a prophetic vision, they would not have consented to do what is unnatural, and
Abraham would not have found in his soul strength enough to perform that act, if
he had any doubt [as regards the truth of the commandment]. It was just the right
thing that this lesson derived from the ’akedah (“sacrifice”) should be taught
through Abraham and a man like Isaac. For Abraham was the first to teach the Unity
of God, to establish the faith [in Him], to cause it to remain among coming generations,
and to will his fellow-men for his doctrine; as Scripture says of him: “I know him,
that he will command,” etc. (Gen. viii. 19). In the same manner as he was followed
by others in his true and valuable opinions when they were heard from him, so also
the principles should be accepted that may be learnt from his actions; especially
from the act by which he confirmed the principle of the truth of prophecy, and showed
how far we must go in the fear and the love of God.

This is the way how we have to understand the accounts of trials;
we must not think that God desires to examine us and to try us in order to know
what He did not know before. Far is this from Him; He is far above that which ignorant
and foolish people imagine concerning Him, in the evil of their thoughts. Note this.